I suspect there is an expectation, in both the protocol design, and the wave sandbox that waves are persistent. We probably should hack a persistence layer into fed one at some point. In my stupidly large amount of spare time. ;-)
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 12:04 PM, James Purser <[email protected]>wrote: > > One of the problems I'm noticing is that there doesn't seem to be a way > to indicate the loss of a previous good wave (say when a server gets > rebooted or something similar). After going through the spec I've > noticed that the History Request/Response doesn't carry any room for an > error response. > > So I propose the following be added to the History Response packet: > > <history-result result-id (Required) result-text (Optional)/> > > The update must contain ONE history-result element indicating the > success or failure and in the case of failure the reason for the > failure. > > Thoughts? Also where's the best place to put this proposal? > -- > James Purser > Collaborynth > http://collaborynth.com.au > Mob: +61 406 576 553 > Skype: purserj1977 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/purserj > > > > > -- Brett Morgan http://domesticmouse.livejournal.com/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Wave Protocol" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
